Diluted Bay Act Rumored

Activists Fear Changes Ahead

June 25, 1989|By MARY BETH REGAN Staff Writer

Environmentalists who once heralded the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act as the state's key to saving the bay are bracing themselves for disappointment.

"The bay foundation has heard rumblings to the effect that the department may be proposing the weakening of some proposed standards," said Joseph H. Maroon, Virginia executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

"It seems the department would be doing a disservice if they advise the board on political decisions rather than sticking to the technical and safety issues."

Following five months of debate and comments from every interest group from farmers to developers, the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department will present its final recommendations Wednesday. Then it's up to a nine-member citizens' board. No one knows if a decision will be made Wednesday.

One change under consideration is relaxing the buffer zone requirements in urban areas. The department has proposed that construction be set back at least 100 feet from shorelines, marshland and other sensitive areas.

Under current proposals, said Paul E. Fisher, project director of the state government's Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency, "If the Daily Press is within 100 feet of the water and it burns down, you can't rebuild it."

Fisher said he had talked with two department staff members about possible changes. One would be an exemption that would allow for building and rebuilding in urban areas if that development does not result in more pollution running off the land.

Jeter M. Watson, executive director of the local assistance department, said the staff has not decided whether to recommend this change. "It's something we're kicking around."

Patricia A. Jackson, executive director of the Lower James River Association, an environmentalists' group, said she has concerns that the change could create a loophole.

"If a house burns down, how do you know that someone isn't going to build a 20-story building in its place?" Jackson said. "With redevelopment there is a big difference between adding a garage and putting up a high-rise."

Maroon said he is also concerned the department will recommend relaxing other regulations.

One controversial issue is the septic tank regulation, which would require an 18-inch separation between the ground water and drainage trench. Many local governments, developers and builders have fought the regulation, saying it is an issue that should be left to the state Health Department.

An ominous sign for environmentalists was a special meeting called by the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee on June 14 to review the department's progress.

"That's very unusual," Jackson said.

At the meeting, state Sen. William E. Fears said he planned to ask the 1990 General Assembly to block the regulations if localities are not given more money to put them into effect.

Even though the 1,200 written comments have been running about 9-to-1 in favor of the regulations, Maroon and Jackson said they fear political pressure from developers, rather than scientific data, will be the barometer for determining the regulations.

"There has been so much pressure," Jackson said. "It's the most emotional thing that's come along."

Despite anxiety, Jackson said she is optimistic that the board will carry out the intent of the act by protecting water quality.

"If they don't, I think there will be a groundswell of public sentiment against this," she said.